Women on Boards (Wob) is the name of the inquiry led by Lord Davies of Abersoch into male dominance in UK boardrooms. "Dominance" is about right. Currently, only 12.5% of FTSE 100 directors are women, 50% of the FTSE 250 have no female directors at all and progress is so slow that Lord Davies estimates that, at this rate, it would take more than 70 years to sort out.

Wob wants 25% of board vacancies to be filled by women by 2015. Management consultancy McKinsey says this would require only one in three appointments to be women. However, there will be no mandatory quotas, a la Norway (where boards must be 40% female by law). Wob discovered "overwhelming opposition" to enforced quotas, concern that the appointments would look "tokenistic", leading to a devaluation of female achievements, basically a big, gooey lipsticked kiss of career death.

Lord Davies's conclusion was that companies should voluntarily set themselves targets and "frankly do their best to meet them". Hmm. And, if their best is, "frankly", not good enough? Well, there would be reviews, investigations. It might take a while, though. You know how it is, more meetings with posh biscuits, years passing, tumbleweed blowing. So, do women still think that tokenism is the very worst thing that could happen to them?

Who in their right mind believes that the glass ceiling could be smashed within a few years with a teensy weensy tap from a (voluntary) toffee hammer? More to the point, when did tokenism outstrip sexism as the big female corporate bogeyman?

So what if there is tokenism, especially with the odds so stacked against women? The inquiry cites "opaque" recruitment processes as one of the major problems – men giving friends positions with barely an interview, sometimes just because they are golf or squash buddies. (Astonishing!) There is even something called the old boys' network. Who knew? Except we all knew, so what's with the self-flagellation over tokenism, ladies?

Indeed, one of the most baffling Wob findings was that many women opposed mandatory quotas (wanting to be judged on their own merits etc). But is this really so surprising? Or is it just indicative that even female high achievers of this calibre have been so skilfully groomed to apologise for their gender that they are now terrified of the "T" word? Has it got to the point that they balk at the thought of long overdue changes to unjust male-centric working practices?

Work practices that don't even work that well. A new book, Coaching Women to Lead, points out that "gender-rich partnerships with 50% women prosper up to 11% better than those that are all-male". Research from McKinsey found that companies with more women on their boards outperformed rivals in myriad ways. Everyone is better off with more women fairly placed at the top and yet still there's this fretting over a gender-based fast track.

Isn't it time that women stopped beating themselves up about tokenism and gave it its real name – parity? Do the women who opposed mandatory quotas really want womankind spending the next 70 years fretting about Cliff from Accounting "not judging them on their merits"? In the twilight of their career, will they be thrilled that they never gave some pinstripe snot the opportunity to "devalue their achievements", even if it did mean having to watch much lesser talents, with different genitalia, swan past them through the double doors, to Rich Teas and glory?

It's high time for women to make tokenism their friend – own the dreaded "T" word, have fun with the fact that, thinking about it logically, anyone could be lumped into a quota. Come 2015, a round of applause for the first female board member to turn to a male colleague and say: "Just because you're only here to fill the male quota of 75%, it doesn't mean I think any less of you."

A boy in a dress isn't evil, but size zero models are

The image I keep seeing is of Pejic in a Jean Paul Gaultier wedding gown. The same "Crazee" JPG who'd send a unicorn down the runway if he could, who designed Madonna's ultra-femme coned bra, whose perfume bottle is woman-shaped. Is this a gay man who hates women?

What's so shocking about a boy in a dress anyway? Marilyn did the same in the 1980s and no one had a rad-fem fit. For the true face of catwalk evil, look instead to the girl models, some so emaciated they made Samantha Cameron blench in shock.

As for the accepted "fact" that "fashion is full of gay men who hate women"… this isn't a fact – it's snide, homophobic hogwash, offensive to the hordes of committed gay professionals in the fashion industry. If fashion has a problem (and, by Zoolander, it does), it's not covert hatred of the female, rather, it's overt worship of youth and the BMI that comes with youth. All this, and worse, could be said of fashion, but let's keep the gay-bashing out of it.

Radiohead are running on empty

There's a row about Radiohead's latest "difficult new album", The King of Limbs. Some people believe it to be in the postmillennial Radiohead tradition or, as I like to put it: "More unlistenable, whiney-boy ear-poo." Their marketing division can use that if they like.

Others suggest that people have not spent enough time with Limbs to comment. Fair point – some albums are "growers".

Then again, how much time do Radiohead need? They've already been flailing around (sounding like drunks tripping over Jean Michel Jarre's dustbins) for a decade. Are we actually supposed to take sabbaticals to search through their turgid cacophonies for a melody? Singular. Just one, guys, don't be tight.

In my experience, whenever reviewers are given no notice to, um, review, it's a sure sign that the band have produced a stinker. Or it's a media power-trip. (Keep the public uninformed! YAY! Smash the man!)

The truth is, one never needed "time" to realise that Fake Plastic Trees, High and Dry or Karma Police were works of chilling beauty. So why are we being urged to be "patient" with The King of Limbs? To hell with patience. I'll reserve my patience for helping old people across the road, not for new albums by millionaire professionals.

They were a great band in their day, but that doesn't give Radiohead the right to keep releasing bizarre dirges that sound like C-3P0 being murdered. To me, Limbs is the sound of Radiohead's fear – fear that they can't hack writing melodies anymore, so they pretend they never intended to, and try to make people feel thick for "not getting it, ma-aan". It's rare and difficult to be able to keep writing beautiful tunes, so admit it, "Thom of Yorke", that's the real reason it's not happening.